Quote:
- Us mods have talked it over, and we decided to allow this thread to stay open, even with the ban talk. Currently the modern community seems to be buzzing over this topic, meaning whether its true or not, it has hit some accord with us. As such, it is a discussion that should be had here as well, not just over reddit and twitter.
Please keep your posts about the article. If you wish to discuss ban talk, again, keep it linked to the article.
Normally we, the mods in the modern sub, are pretty strict about the modern subs rules. One of our rules is about format bashing (created way back when modern was first made and a lot of legacy players we're afraid to lose support to their favorite format) as well as banlist talk kept only into the ban list thread. Again the reasoning has to do with most of the gripes we heard of the format were from the banlist, and this type of talk would always turn into flame wars as people defend their point. As such we have moderated these two kinds of posts pretty rigidly to avoid flame/troll wars.
However, there have been times we have let the rule slide a little in terms of outside threads, mostly in the case of "big news" or a serious issue. For example when there was a ton of people speaking in support of wild nacatl and bitterblossom unbans, we opened a thread that allowed people to vote what should be unbanned/banned. Likewise, in the case of treasure cruise, we allowed a thread to stay open that discussed what a meta without it would look like, and the effect of the color blue in modern.
In this case, when PV's article came out, and a thread opened, our first thought was to close it, and delegate it to the Banlist thread, as it is talking about banlist discussions anyways. However, it quickly got a heated twitter debate between pros, and 2 different articles coming out only a few hours after each other. With Reddit trending it as well, it was clear it wasn't something we could just hope people would take to the ban thread, and we mods felt it was an issue that should be open for the modern community to (hopefully) intelligently discuss.
We did want to however, remind everyone, that just because we were bending the rules, that doesn't mean the flood gates were open. The rules were still largely in place.
I'd like to ask a related question: Why do the Modern subforum moderators feel the need to take such a hardline approach to the forum? I know that I for one have actively avoided posting in the Modern subforum for the past several months for fear of what I see as heavy-handed, overbearing moderation. I would not be surprised if others have followed suit.
EDIT: For reference, my last post in the modern subforum was in September 8, 2014, and I have felt like making posts since then but refrained for fear of moderation.
I'd like to ask a related question: Why do the Modern subforum moderators feel the need to take such a hardline approach to the forum? I know that I for one have actively avoided posting in the Modern subforum for the past several months for fear of what I see as heavy-handed, overbearing moderation. I would not be surprised if others have followed suit.
EDIT: For reference, my last post in the modern subforum was in September 8, 2014, and I have felt like making posts since then but refrained for fear of moderation.
I can definitely speak to this!
There are two things that we regularly card for in the Modern forum. The first is banlist discussion outside of the official thread. This is a huge one because banlist discussion can really detract from deck development, especially when it happens in actual deck threads. When it happens outside of deck threads, it still really derails the forum and is almost always just a repeat of conversations that happen in the ban thread. Although we have temporarily "opened this up" in the last week, in light of recent articles and Modern developments, it's still a policy we are going to stick with. As Lantern talked about, this really prevents flame wars and other kinds of rulebreaking, where people really dig in on their positions and defend them at all costs. By keeping banlist discussion confined to the ban thread, we can limit that and make it easier to monitor.
The second thing that can be problematic in the Modern subforum is flaming and trolling. We have a lot of users with strong opinions, and they express those opinions both in deck threads and in threads in Modern general. Heck, this isn't even a MTGS specific issue! Lots of people have strong Modern-related opinions, and those kind of opinions can attract trouble in all kinds of online venues. We see this the most in the banlist thread, but it also happens elsewhere across the forums. And when people are directly insulting users or instigating fights, then we step in to try and keep things civil. This often involves thread-wide verbal warnings where no one gets a direct warning/infraction, and then we only escalate to warnings/infractions as needed.
I'm sorry to hear that moderation has kept you out of the forums. They have only gotten more and more active over the years and we definitely want them to be a welcoming place. I'm curious as to what kind of moderation you are worried about. Is there anything in particular? Let us know!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/596713-paulo-vitor-damo-da-rosas-problem-with-modern
Quote:
- Us mods have talked it over, and we decided to allow this thread to stay open, even with the ban talk. Currently the modern community seems to be buzzing over this topic, meaning whether its true or not, it has hit some accord with us. As such, it is a discussion that should be had here as well, not just over reddit and twitter.
Please keep your posts about the article. If you wish to discuss ban talk, again, keep it linked to the article.
I am curious, what is this about ?
However, there have been times we have let the rule slide a little in terms of outside threads, mostly in the case of "big news" or a serious issue. For example when there was a ton of people speaking in support of wild nacatl and bitterblossom unbans, we opened a thread that allowed people to vote what should be unbanned/banned. Likewise, in the case of treasure cruise, we allowed a thread to stay open that discussed what a meta without it would look like, and the effect of the color blue in modern.
In this case, when PV's article came out, and a thread opened, our first thought was to close it, and delegate it to the Banlist thread, as it is talking about banlist discussions anyways. However, it quickly got a heated twitter debate between pros, and 2 different articles coming out only a few hours after each other. With Reddit trending it as well, it was clear it wasn't something we could just hope people would take to the ban thread, and we mods felt it was an issue that should be open for the modern community to (hopefully) intelligently discuss.
We did want to however, remind everyone, that just because we were bending the rules, that doesn't mean the flood gates were open. The rules were still largely in place.
EDIT: For reference, my last post in the modern subforum was in September 8, 2014, and I have felt like making posts since then but refrained for fear of moderation.
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
Have played duals? I have PucaPoints for them!
(Credit to DarkNightCavalier)
$tandard: Too poor.
Modern:
- GW Birthing Pod(?)
Legacy:
- UWR Delver
I can definitely speak to this!
There are two things that we regularly card for in the Modern forum. The first is banlist discussion outside of the official thread. This is a huge one because banlist discussion can really detract from deck development, especially when it happens in actual deck threads. When it happens outside of deck threads, it still really derails the forum and is almost always just a repeat of conversations that happen in the ban thread. Although we have temporarily "opened this up" in the last week, in light of recent articles and Modern developments, it's still a policy we are going to stick with. As Lantern talked about, this really prevents flame wars and other kinds of rulebreaking, where people really dig in on their positions and defend them at all costs. By keeping banlist discussion confined to the ban thread, we can limit that and make it easier to monitor.
The second thing that can be problematic in the Modern subforum is flaming and trolling. We have a lot of users with strong opinions, and they express those opinions both in deck threads and in threads in Modern general. Heck, this isn't even a MTGS specific issue! Lots of people have strong Modern-related opinions, and those kind of opinions can attract trouble in all kinds of online venues. We see this the most in the banlist thread, but it also happens elsewhere across the forums. And when people are directly insulting users or instigating fights, then we step in to try and keep things civil. This often involves thread-wide verbal warnings where no one gets a direct warning/infraction, and then we only escalate to warnings/infractions as needed.
I'm sorry to hear that moderation has kept you out of the forums. They have only gotten more and more active over the years and we definitely want them to be a welcoming place. I'm curious as to what kind of moderation you are worried about. Is there anything in particular? Let us know!